A State of One's Own? - A Legal Study of the Right to Self-Determination and Secession with Focus on the case of Québec and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the right of a people to self-determination and the possibility of secession in a democratic context, focusing on the Québec-Canada case. To that end, it studies (1) the historic and contemporary relationship between Québec and Canada, (2) the meaning of the right to self-determination within international law, (3) possibilities for unilateral secession, and (4) secession by virtue of democracy. In this process, the thesis employs an analytical legal method with a human rights-centred approach. The material underpinning the study is primarily international legal sources, used to establish and interpret international law lex lata, but even some views on lex ferenda. The judicial decision Québec Secession Reference from the Supreme Court of Canada furthermore plays an integral part. The source material is viewed through an international and a multicultural perspective. Britain gained control of French Québec in 1759, and the Québécois has since struggled to preserve their culture; distinguished by French language, civil law and Roman Catholicism. When federal Canada was established in 1867, Québec also had to fight against centralisation. The sovereignty movement grew during the 1960s and onwards, resulting in two referendums regarding secession as well as in the Reference before the Supreme Court. The right to self-determination is customary international law and is normally fulfilled through political participation of the citizens in the democratic process. Having met this requirement, a state has earned its right to territorial integrity, and any right to secession is precluded. Self-determination also includes a right for a people to preserve their culture. Yet, international law does not per se guarantee a collective group such influence. Democracy, however, is by Western states given a deeper meaning than majority rule and is also attributed values such as tolerance and respect for all groups within a state. The Supreme Court of Canada held this to include, in certain cases, an obligation to negotiate a potential secession. The Québécois, therefore, have no right to secession, as their claim to self-determination is fulfilled within the Canadian state. Seen in the context of democracy, they could however utilise their self-determination to negotiate a consensual secession. International law and democratic principles can therefore be said to represent mainly liberal- individualist ideals, on the expense of collective interests. Nonetheless, it also allows for mutual consideration, which is necessary for the peaceful coexistence of different groups, be it in a multi-ethnic state or in a state of one’s own.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".